Q From his remarks this morning, the President didn't seem to be
much in a compromising mood, still pretty critical of the Democrats.
What's going to be his opening remarks?

MR. SNOW: Well, we'll let him make those to Democrats. Let me
make a couple of points about -- it's interesting, it appears that the
discussion about compromise is all the White House needs to compromise,
it's never asked what the Hill is going to do. Fortunately, when there
are talks today I think both sides are going to be working in a spirit
of trying to get something constructive done. But as tempting as it may
be, I'm not going to tell you what precisely the President is going to
say. You'll have opportunities to hear from people who will have been
involved in the meeting and they can give you their readout.

What the President is not in the mood to compromise about is an
attempt to try to tie the hands of generals or troops on the ground.
He's not in the mood to compromise about an approach that creates a
sense of doubt among our allies, weakens the Iraqi government. Instead
what he wants to do is to pull together a package -- and I think both
sides want to do this -- that is going to make it possible to give the
troops the full funding and also the flexibility necessary to create
conditions that are going to -- of greater security and safety within
Iraq, and at the same time, also, as you know, part of the funding here
is for ongoing economic development efforts -- all of this is very
important for building a secure and stable Iraq. That remains the
ultimate endpoint, and anything that works against those goals is not
going to be serving our national interest.

Having said that, the President certainly is going to be listening
to members of Congress and their concerns. They have known for a long
time that they are not going to be able to pass into law the measure
that finally made its way up here yesterday. Now we've got to find
something that will make its way into law and that will meet the basic
requirements that the President has laid out. He will not compromise on
issues that involve the effectiveness and the security and the
operational ability of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Q Can I follow up on that?

MR. SNOW: Yes, sure, Terry.

Q Did the President read the bill before he vetoed it?

MR. SNOW: The President -- we have had plenty of time to review
the bill.

Q Can you talk about the spirit of these meetings today, then?
Is the spirit to compromise? I know you're saying you won't compromise
on this, that or the other --

MR. SNOW: Let me put it this way --

Q -- he's listening, but is he willing to compromise in some way
to get this through?

MR. SNOW: The President is going to be working with Congress to
get something done. Again, you may -- maybe I wasn't listening, but I
haven't heard the question asked of congressional leaders. The fact is,
both sides have to work together. You may describe it as compromise,
you can describe it any way you want. There has to be a constructive
effort to get a bill that is going to serve our national interest, meet
the basic conditions the President has laid out, and provide the kind of
-- the support that the troops need.

Q I'm sure our congressional counterpoints are probably handling
that end of it, but can you tell us from the White House podium what
spirit the President goes into these meetings with?

MR. SNOW: It's going to be -- it's going to be a spirit of saying,
let's work together. It is not -- it is not going to be an antagonistic
spirit. And the President does look forward to working with both sides.

Look, he said on a number of occasions in recent days, Martha, that
he feels confident that we are going to get acceptable legislation out
of this. How that takes place, we'll find out. But this is not going
to be an antagonistic meeting where people are sort of glowering at one
another. Instead it's going to be one where the President says, okay,
let's work together.

Q We want to know if there's going to be any give, any give out
of the President -- from the rule of the people to move out of this war.

MR. SNOW: Yes, we want to move out of this war by succeeding.

Q Violence escalating every day.

Q Tony --

MR. SNOW: Wait a minute, let me stop. Helen, the people have been
-- if you take a look at what's been going on recently, there have been
a number of al Qaeda attacks that had have the -- that have killed
innocents --

Q Did every Iraqi attack --

MR. SNOW: No, but if you take a look at the MO of al Qaeda --
bombing attacks -- as a matter of fact, you've seen some reports, for
instance, of Iraqis, even those who are opposed to the government, going
after foreign fighters. There's a real and recognizable problem there,
and it has to be dealt with. So those who say we need to fight al
Qaeda, part of what we're trying to do is to build greater capability
there.

Q We brought them into Iraq.

Q Tony, on that point, this morning the President said that al
Qaeda seems to be a bigger problem than sectarian violence. That seems
to fly in the face of what we've heard in recent weeks and months on the
ground in Iraq.

MR. SNOW: Well, you've got a shifting series of circumstances,
Bret. If you take a look, for instance, what al Qaeda -- it's
interesting, because it's impossible to segregate them entirely. You
take a look at what happened at the Golden Mosque in Samarra -- very
likely an al Qaeda attack that, in turn, spawned sectarian violence over
the last year and some months. So al Qaeda's explicit goal, as Abu
Musab al Zarqawi said many times, was to create sectarian violence,
which was to try to use acts of violence that would set Shia against
Sunni, and Sunni against Shia, and therefore, would destabilize the
government and also create the opportunity to establish a safe ground
for al Qaeda within the confines of Iraq.

So they're not neatly divisible. Having said that, you have seen,
for instance, the signs of sectarian violence -- the kind of murders
that were taking place within Baghdad, those are way down. General
Petraeus has laid some of that out, as has the President. So there are
some of the things that would be sort of signatures of sectarian
violence.

But this is not to say that sectarian violence does not remain a
concern, or that it is not something that is going to continue to be a
problem. Of course, it will. But what you have seen is sort of a
shifting of what's going on, but that is kind of normal in the course of
war. There are different things that take place at different times, and
a simple categorization of the violence is very difficult to make;
things do continue to change.

Q If I could follow. You say you're not going to negotiate from
this podium, but can you say that the President is willing to consider
benchmarks with some punitive action if the Iraqis don't meet them?

MR. SNOW: I am not going to negotiate from this. Let me tell you,
there are two -- let me give you two things to think about. Number one,
it's very important to have metrics by which to measure success with the
Iraqi government. The Iraqi government is not our enemy, it's our ally.
We are here -- we want to support the Iraqi government and help it build
capability so that it can handle security operations, economic
development, diplomatic relations, political evolution, and so on. All
those things are important. So the key is how do you work with them.
And I think if you talk to Democrats, ultimately, the question is how do
you build that capability and how do you put together the right set of
policies so they're going to be able to move forward?

The second thing is that, again, I am not going to be telling you
precisely what we're going to be discussing. But the President is
looking for ways to --

Q Will he consider it?

MR. SNOW: The President will consider anything that anybody
offers. The question is what will people have to say when they get
there, and certainly he'll be fair. So, again, we're going to be
listening to what everybody has to say. This has to be a constructive
exercise. But, again, it also has to be one -- and respect shown on
both sides, and also respect ultimately for the goal of trying to build
conditions for a successful Iraqi government, along the lines where a
lot of the basics everybody does agree on, including metrics, which the
President laid out a number of those a while ago and you do need to find
ways to be able to measure progress.

Q Tony, the President sort of framed the argument today saying,
Americans don't have to choose between being in between warring
sectarian sides in a "civil war" -- using that term -- instead, it's a
fight against al Qaeda. Wasn't the whole point of the surge to quell
the capital and really to diminish the sectarian violence? And now he
seems to be saying the enemy is more al Qaeda, rather than --

MR. SNOW: But, again, as I pointed out just a minute ago, Kelly,
what you've done is you've indicated that there has been some change in
status on the ground since the new Baghdad security plan began to be
implemented. And I think that's true. On the other hand, again, nobody
wants to take victory laps. For instance, when it comes to sectarian
violence, what did you see? You saw members of the Mahdi Army publicly
laying down arms. You saw Moqtada al Sadr leaving Baghdad. You saw a
series of very swift changes simply upon announcement, and there have
been areas in which you have seen reductions in sectarian violence.
That reflects the facts on the ground.

You've also seen an attempt by al Qaeda, in response to this, to
put together, for instance, coordinated car bombings and the kind of
thing, especially near holy sites, not only in Baghdad, but around the
country, that probably ought to be construed as attempts to do what
happened with the Samarra Mosque bombing, which is to reignite the
sectarian tension.

So what the President -- the President is not shifting the
analysis; the Baghdad security plan was there to try to learn from the
mistakes that we made with the two Baghdad security plans last year. In
other words, we didn't keep a 24/7 presence; we didn't move in quickly
with economic development; we weren't as fully integrated on a 24/7
basis with Iraqi forces; we weren't the developing -- we didn't give the
Iraqis a big enough chip in the game. All of those things are things
we've learned from. And you've got David Petraeus, then, who also has
considerable success -- he did it in Mosul with counter-insurgency, and
is somebody who is our acknowledged expert on the topic.

So what you want to do is you want to keep in mind --

Q Tony, is it politically persuasive to say the enemy is al
Qaeda and not getting in between sectarian groups?

MR. SNOW: The characterizations here are not part of a sales
pitch, they're an attempt to try to reflect what's going on on the
ground. General Petraeus, when he does this, is laying out what he
sees. Now, it's entirely conceivable that a month from now you'll have
sectarian problems. We hope not. But again, I think you're trying to
use a political lens for statements that really are designed simply to
say, look, we have shifting realities on the ground.

The President laid out plenty of evidence for that last week. And
so has MNFI on a pretty regular basis. They try to do what they can to
make the statistics known and the data available to everybody. So it's
not an attempt to try to change the characterization for political
reasons.

Q Can I just clarify, following Kelly's question, when the
President laid out that construct in the speech today, the civil war-al
Qaeda construct, it seemed that he was saying there is a civil war.

MR. SNOW: No, if you go back to the National Intelligence
Estimate, what you had was -- again, look at what NIE said, which is
that you have some clashes that are consistent with civil war, and
inconsistent with the notion of a civil war. I am not going to get us
back into that whole sort of debate about how you define a civil war.
The fact is that we have a situation where we are working to develop for
the Iraqis the ability to establish institutions and also conditions on
the ground that are going to be conducive not only to creating a stable
democracy, but giving people an active incentive to join in. But I'm
just --

Q I don't want to go back there, either, except the fact that
the President seemed to say it clearly today.

MR. SNOW: Again, it's -- the position -- it's just much more
complicated than that.

Q Okay, let me follow one more time on the idea of -- the
compromise, which you said the Democrats have not come out and said what
they wanted, that everything seems to be us asking you what the White
House is willing to do, but we're not hearing it from Capitol Hill.

MR. SNOW: I'm just curious from a questioning point of view that
-- yes.

Q Well, there's been reporting and the Democrats said very
clearly yesterday that the time to push troop withdrawal deadlines was
over, but they were willing to do some work on benchmarks, attaching --

MR. SNOW: Okay, well again, we look forward to the conversation.
I'm still not going to --

Q No, but wait a minute. They're being very clear about what
they're willing to do and what they're pushing as far as an approach.
And I think it's only fair that you give some indications as to whether
or not that's something in the ballpark here.

MR. SNOW: The fact is that there have probably been four or five
separate proffers from a number of individuals in the Democratic Party,
none of which seem to reflect yet a consensus on the part of the party,
which is one of the reasons we're asking the leaders in. So what you're
asking me to respond to is one of many ideas that have been floated.

Again, I think it's more constructive -- let everybody have their
conversations, and you're going to have to be patient. There are going
to be discussions. People will be at the sticks today, they'll have
comments to make. But I think what you're going to see is a good-faith
effort out of the White House, and we think also that the signs we've
gotten from Capitol Hill are a good-faith effort to try to get something
done that will achieve the basic goals that the President laid out and
will allow us to move forward.

Q Tony, I want to go back to the notion of al Qaeda versus
sectarian violence. One of the things you and the President have cited
is progress in al Anbar recently. That was taking place before the new
strategy even began.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q So you keep trying to tie that in with the new strategy, when,
in fact, it's really the long war strategy from before it even started.

MR. SNOW: All right, let me break this down for you. What's
happened in Anbar, it's not -- what happened in Anbar is, Sunnis were
tired of having foreign fighters come in and kill their people, and they
decided to turn against them; God bless them. What has happened --

Q Right, and it happened months ago.

MR. SNOW: Okay, but since the beginning -- but my response was
still germane about Baghdad, which is -- and you know the figures --
that the benchmarks for sectarian violence, the killings, where you had
people going in and killing people wholesale, seemingly merely on a
sectarian basis, you had individual murders and that sort of thing going
on in areas of Baghdad, those numbers, fortunately, are down. But I do
not want to, again, give the impression that we're trying to say, the
sectarian violence is at an end. But by the measures that people have
been using to gauge such things, they've been down.

Now, if you take a look at, again, the things that have been
indicative and typical of al Qaeda activity, such as a single driver
going in, blowing himself up, killing a lot of people, or on a timed
basis, and the use -- foreign fighters being involved in these
activities, those, in fact, have increased in recent weeks. That is
primarily what we've been seeing of late. So all that's doing is
reflecting as accurately as we can what has been going on on the ground.

Q But answer that question about al Anbar. I mean, the
President, again, cited progress in Ramadi and al Anbar, because that
seems where the most progress is, and that was before the new strategy.

MR. SNOW: Well, the strategy -- but on the other hand --

Q So what are we supposed to take from that?

MR. SNOW: What you're supposed to take is there's good news.
Thank you for reporting it.

Q But it has nothing to do with the Baghdad security plan, but
we keep tying it to it.

MR. SNOW: Well, Anbar is not -- no, no, it does -- actually, it
does --

Q -- the progress, the real progress -- I saw last August.

MR. SNOW: I know, Martha. But also what you have seen is -- and
you might want to call your buds, because a lot of people in Anbar do
make this point -- when it was announced that there would be another
4,000 U.S. forces in Anbar, it did, in fact, have the effect of
strengthening both the confidence and the resolve of the people there.
There have been many attempts over time to try to roll back the progress
that had been made there. As a matter of fact, that is not new. You've
seen progress in places like Ramadi, and you've seen the resurgence of
violence. In this particular case, you have seen an effective and
extended period of success there that we hope will continue.

And it is worth noting that as part of the Baghdad security plan
there was also a complement of 4,000 U.S. forces that would be there to
supplement ongoing efforts in Anbar. You're right, the progress began
before, but it has continued. And I think it is reasonable to argue
that this will certainly help sustain the success. But also a lot of
credit has to go to tribal leaders and also Iraqis in Anbar who have
decided to lay down arms, or to go from being people fighting the
government to folks who stand in lines and sign up to become members of
the police forces, while others are trying to keep the peace.

Q Are there 4,000 more there? I don't know.

MR. SNOW: I don't know that all of them are there yet. I'll find
-- you can actually call the Pentagon --

Q Are any of them there?

MR. SNOW: We'll find out.

Q The veto message the President sent up to the Hill argues that
what the Democrats are doing is unconstitutional. How can that be
unconstitutional when they seem to be exercising their power of the
purse?

MR. SNOW: No, they're also -- but when you start getting into
operational details that impinge upon the President's prerogatives as
Commander-in-Chief, that does raise legitimate constitutional issues.

Q The President earlier today defined success in Iraq. He said,
"Success is not, no violence. There are parts of our country that, as
you know, have a certain level of violence to it. But success is a
level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their
daily lives, and that's what we're trying to achieve." What is the
President talking about when he says there's parts in our own country
where a certain level of violence that people will accept?

MR. SNOW: It means that you have places with high crime rates.
And it is something that is quite often a fact of American life that we
don't like and it is something that is a matter of constant and ongoing
concern. But you could construe that as violence, and it is. If you
take a look at drug-related violence that has wracked many of our cities
-- and now, increasingly, in rural areas, as well as suburban -- that is
a form of violence. If you read stories over the years that constantly
take a look at murder rates and rape rates, and every time we come out
with either the Bureau of Justice statistics or FBI with its reports,
it's a standard part of reporting.

So what he's really talking about is that there's certain kinds of
violence that do, unfortunately, exist in a society, but he was not
arguing, for instance, that there are militias afoot or that sort of
thing. He was simply saying, at some point, you need a level of
violence in a society, crime or whatever, that is not going to be
undermining your ability to have a functional democracy. And of course,
the endless experiment within democracy is always to make it more
effective and attending to the needs and safety of the people.

Q If the President is using that as an example of saying that
the Iraqis, if they find a certain level of violence that is acceptable,
that's defined now as success?

MR. SNOW: Yes, in other words, what he's saying is that if you can
have a society that can function more or less normally, where you will
have effective police forces that are able to dispense justice fairly,
regardless of who you are; you have a growing economy; you have a rule
of law; you have political institutions that reflect and protect the
rights of all; you have a political system that is able to adjust over
time and to -- amid compromise and full debate; you have diplomatic
roots set down so you are a strong and functional player within the
region. All of those are parts of being a successful state.

Q But the President -- he argued that this is about freedom,
this is about democracy. But when the President defines success as a
level of violence, where people feel comfortable about living their
daily lives -- that bar is very, very low. That's much lower than a
democracy or freedom agenda.

MR. SNOW: No, it's not. No, it's not. I mean, look, Washington
for many years was the murder capital of the United States of America.
I believe we are still able to do our jobs. Now, really what he's
talking about -- he's talking about that. He is not talking about --

Q How do you define an acceptable level of violence? I mean,
how can that possibly be defined?

MR. SNOW: That's a very good question. I don't have an answer.

Q Can I follow up on --

Q Excuse me --

MR. SNOW: I was going to recognize Sheryl, but, April, you'll be
next.

Go ahead.

Q When you talk about -- you said, operational details before,
with respect to the President's assertion that what the Congress has
done is unconstitutional. Are you saying that Congress does not have it
within its purview to appropriate money and say what purpose that money
can be used for, that they cannot say, this money will be used for
support troops, as opposed to combat troops, for instance?

MR. SNOW: Sheryl, if there are attempts -- the President has --
the President needs the ability to operate effectively as
Commander-in-Chief, and when people start trying to micromanage that
legislatively, that raises constitutional issues.

Q So it's your position that it's unconstitutional then for the
Congress to try to say what kind of troops --

MR. SNOW: I'll give you a general characterization --

Q -- the money can be spent on?

MR. SNOW: I actually think that this is a very interesting
abstract question that's completely irrelevant because I don't think
it's going to be a part of the conversation.

Q It is part of it because the Democrats want to limit the
mission. They want to change -- they want to use this bill to change
the mission and to move us away from combat troops and into support
missions and other missions --

MR. SNOW: Well, I'm not sure that that is -- we'll find out.
We'll find as we go.

Q -- talking about what's acceptable in this country. It seems
to be a wave of gang violence, as you said, in urban, as well as rural
communities. Initiations are creating murders, gang violence itself --
and when you have community leaders to include, black leaders, say
genocide of black -- black-on-black crime in urban America. What is
acceptable about those -- and they are crippling communities.

MR. SNOW: And this is where -- you're getting into an apples and
orange thing, but it's a very good question. Look, no level of violence
in the abstract is acceptable. You want people to be able to live in a
condition of peace. On the other hand, what the President is talking
about is that there will be levels of violence in a society that do not,
in fact, cripple the society's ability to function on a daily basis.
That's merely what he's referring to.

He has also spoken many times and eloquently about the tragedy of
violence within our cities. It remains a concern, and, boy, do I hope
that the Iraqis will be in a position where they now can start worrying
about those levels of concerns, as opposed to al Qaeda violence, or the
possibility of sectarian violence within their boundaries.

Q Well, I hate to paint a drastic picture, but there is a
drastic picture in this country. We talk about what's happening in Iraq
-- curfews and things of that nature. We have people scared to leave
because of sectarian violence and civil war in their country. You have
people in this country scared to leave their homes, scared to go out at
night because of violence, because of gang problems -- so, unacceptable
may be something that --

MR. SNOW: Again, what we're trying to -- look, that's not
acceptable; you understand that. What we're trying to do is to come up
with a metric of saying, there's going to be a level of violence in a
society. But I think you would agree, April, that if that were the kind
of violence that were existing, say, in Baghdad, it would not be a cause
to have extended American presence there. That's something that the
Iraqis ought to be able to take care of.

Q And also on Sudan --

MR. SNOW: Yes, yes.

Q -- on the warrants for the arrests of -- the war crime
arrests. Do you have anything -- what's the White House saying about
that?

MR. SNOW: We very strongly support accountability for those who
are responsible for Darfur, and we expect the government of Sudan to
comply with the obligations under United Nations Security 1593 to
cooperate with the ICC.

Q The President, in the course of this speech, said that
casualties will likely stay high. He spoke of a systematic al Qaeda
attack, the choice of responding to the -- he chose the article "the"
not "a" civil war -- he said there's no easy way out. Why this grim
tone to this speech today, heading into these talks with Congress?

MR. SNOW: No, I don't think it's a grim tone. What the President
is trying to do is be realistic. You got problems there. You have
violence. For instance, if you recall in the State of the Union
address, when we were talking about a way forward, it has always been
known that when you go in and you're engaging the people who have been
responsible for organizing violence, they're going to fight back. And,
therefore, you have seen rising casualty rates within Baghdad. That is
-- we predicted that from the very start. We have known that that is
going to be the case.

On the other hand, there's also been a rapidly rising casualty rate
on the part of the people who are responsible for the violence. What
you have also seen is Iraqi forces not only more deeply engaged, but
also more successful in going in and rooting out some of these cells, in
going in and helping pacify various parts of Baghdad.

The President wants people to understand that a war is a tough
thing, and furthermore, that one of the reasons why we need to support
our forces fully is to go ahead and meet the threat now, rather than to
allow it to worsen, and also to send a clear message to the Iraqi
people, we know that you're facing difficulty, a lot of it is from
foreign forces, and what we want to do is to make sure that you have the
ability to enjoy the democracy that millions of Iraqis voted to put into
place originally, knowing that there were going to be difficulties,
knowing that there is always the possibility of sectarian violence, and
also knowing that it is really important for the Iraqi people to be
industrious and creative in trying to overcome those.

We saw today, for instance, the council of ministers has passed on
to the council of representatives the draft oil law. That is something
that they have been working on for a very long time. And that does not
mean that you've got instant passage, but you're going to have -- you've
got a process where people are working very hard to try to create
incentives that reach past historic enmity and instead give people
economic, social and political reasons to look at one another as -- not
only as countrymen, but as people who have a stake in your success and
you have a stake in their success.

Q Tony, sorry, just one more related question. For the first
time, the U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom has put Iraq on a watch
list of countries where worship is under siege. Among other things, its
report cited arbitrary arrests and torture and rape. Is this the kind
of thing that U.S. troops are in the middle of here?

MR. SNOW: Peter, I haven't seen the report, so I can't comment on
it.

Goyal.

Q First of all, welcome back.

MR. SNOW: Thank you, sir.

Q When President Bush made an announcement on mangoes from
India, I was with him in India in Hyderabad. And yesterday his dream
came true. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns and Susan Schwab, the
U.S. Rep, and also Ambassador Ronen Sen, they had a celebration
yesterday at the Commerce Department by the U.S.-India Business Council.
Mangoes from India arrived, and here is a basket for President Bush, and
also for the First Lady mangoes from India. My question is that, what
message does mangoes bring, as far as India-U.S. relations are concerned
-- trade and other issues?

MR. SNOW: I don't know, it is my first mango-related inquiry.
(Laughter.) Goyal, I think what you do see is constantly -- India is a
very important partner for the United States. You saw the civil
nuclear agreement, also agricultural cooperation. India is going to be
vital part also in pursuing the Doha Round. So I think it, once again,
reflects what we see, which is not only increasing closeness between the
two governments, but also increasing interdependency.

Q Tony, back to success again for just a moment. Previously,
success has been defined as Iraq defending itself, sustaining itself,
and so on.

MR. SNOW: Governing itself.

Q Governing itself. And today we saw success defined as kind of
a lower level of violence. Is there a difference?

MR. SNOW: No, this is not inconsistent. This is part of what we
discussed before. No, it's not at all inconsistent.

Q Not a new definition --

MR. SNOW: No.

Q Tony, I've got a couple of questions. The first one is, does
the President intend to move at all in terms of his position?

MR. SNOW: The President -- again, I know it's really tempting,
"the President moved" -- I am sure that everybody is going to have --
when this is all done, I will allow each and every person to decide how
much people have moved or boogied or done whatever they've done during
the course of legislative compromise. But the fact is that there will
be discussions that we think are going to lead to an acceptable measure
that both sides are going to be able to take pride and credit. He's
going to be listening and it is his determination to work with Congress
to get something that's acceptable.

So my guess is, I will let other people do the definitional stuff
later. Why don't we wait and see first what we see, in terms of the
body language after today's meeting, and also what we begin to see in
terms of cooperation on both sides and discussions -- Democrats,
Republicans and the White House, together, House and Senate -- to try to
come up with a measure that we hope very quickly can get passed into
law, because there is a certain amount of urgency in getting this
funding in the pipeline.

Q In his speech today, he was asked a question about the media
and media coverage. And in his reply he referred to free speech. And
then he said, "without glossing over the inherent dangers." What
"inherent dangers" in free speech was he referring to?

MR. SNOW: That I don't know, because, frankly, I was not at the
speech. And I'll get back to you.

Q Would you, please? It was interesting.

MR. SNOW: Yes, I'm sure it was.

Q I have a related one.

MR. SNOW: Okay. Let's try to keep this in sort of a related --
that's a good idea.

Q Thank you. You mentioned the need for metrics and ways to
measure progress, but I'm wondering, is there also a need to find ways
to hold people accountable for reaching those --

MR. SNOW: Do you think that it's a matter that the Iraqis do not
want peace, do not want security? I think they do. So you can look at
it one of two ways. Again, you can treat them as the wayward party that
you're going to punish, or you can treat them as the partner you want to
assist. And it is our desire, in every way possible, as constructively
as possible, to help them go ahead and gain those capabilities. Does it
mean that you might try to nudge them? Are you going to have
conversations with them? That happens on a very regular basis.

But I think there's a characterization sometimes that tends to
demean the government of Iraq, where people are laying their lives on
the line and it's a very difficult business, and we want to see that
government succeed.

Q Well, how is it demeaning? I mean, people love their children
and children are given punishments. Why wouldn't we want to take some
way to hold -- or would the President at least consider some way to hold
the government accountable for reaching certain goals as a way to prod
an ally?

MR. SNOW: Again, you can look at it two ways: Do you prod an
ally, or do you weaken the government? Let me put it this way: There
are some concerned within the region that the way -- when you frame a
question that way, it says we have no faith in the government.
Therefore, it creates difficulties within the country because partners
to the coalition ask themselves, does this mean that the Americans are
not going to help out? Are they going to walk away? Are they going to
bail out? If you go back to -- and the fear of the United States doing
what the Baker-Hamilton commission called precipitated withdrawal, is
palpable. They want to know that we're going to help them succeed.

And so it's important to figure out how you frame it. I think
Democrats and Republicans, again, have the same goal, which is, how do
you get the Iraqis into a position as swiftly as possible that they
succeed in doing these things they need to do? And that will be part of
the conversation.

You will notice that I am not going to answer your question when it
comes to the way in which you create those incentives. That is properly
a matter for discussion between the people who are going to be around
the table, and I'm sure they're going to have those conversations. But,
again, what you want to do is to find a way to assist that government
that does not undermine it, that does not undermine American credibility
or prestige in the region, but instead helps to strengthen our interest,
helps to strengthen our credibility and helps strengthen that
government.

Les, I know that you're not going to be on this issue --

Q You do? How do you know?

MR. SNOW: ESP. Am I correct?

Q You're right. (Laughter.) Will you come back?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Thank you.

Q You said there's a certain amount of urgency in getting this
done. Care to be more specific about what it needs to get done?

MR. SNOW: No, because, you know what, as I pointed out, for all
the talk about benchmarks, Congress can't meet its benchmarks. If I set
up a benchmark it's not necessarily going to be productive. I think
everybody wants to get this done quickly. But, no, I do not want to --
I don't want to start the egg timer.

Q Congressional Research Service has said until July there is
not really a problem with funding. Is that incorrect?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, if you talk to the Pentagon, there's
already been -- it depends on how you define a problem. You've already
got the situation where you have to start moving money between accounts.
That is not optimal. And I think probably the best thing to do for our
military is to go ahead and keep all parts of it fully funded. And that
means going ahead and finishing up this emergency supplemental as
quickly as possible.

Q "Not optimal," does that mean we're in a problem already, or
is it just not optimal?

MR. SNOW: I'm saying that -- I'm not going to get into
characterizing it, but I think you would agree that if you have a
situation where you have to start moving between accounts, that's less
good than one where all the accounts are fully funded.

Q Tony, a senior DOD official said that we have time until June.
Is that true? Where there's some leeway for about a month?

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not going to try to characterize exactly
what's going on, other than we're moving money between accounts and
that's not the way you want to run an operation.

Q So we should see the President standing firm for about another
two to three weeks --

MR. SNOW: You'll see the President standing firm on principle
throughout. Look, I want you to understand, because there's a tendency
in Washington to say, this is a kind of a legislative chess game and
we've got to do this, so this guy moves this far and this guy moves this
far -- no. The purpose of this bill, it's an emergency supplemental
bill to finance ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You have to do that in a way that will allow you to conduct effectively
ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is not a chess game. The people over there are not chess
pieces. They are American citizens fighting for something that is very
important for our long-term national security and our immediate national
security. And, therefore, the idea of somehow saying, will the
President sort of change in two weeks -- the conditions that he's laid
out, in terms of providing funding and flexibility are not going to
change. That's not going to change.

But on the other hand, you've got a lot of members who agree with
him. Probably a majority. So here is a chance to answer a lot of
concerns that members of Congress have about how we look at this, work
collegially with members of the House and Senate, then provide the
funding and flexibility.

Q So do you agree with the person from DOD that the hardship is
worse in June, and that's when --

MR. SNOW: The hardship continues to get worse. We've already said
that there's already been a transfer, it tends to accelerate the middle
of this month and it will get worse as time goes on.

Q Tony, one of the Democrats' arguments is that the American
people are on their side in this debate. I'm just wondering, how does
the President, how does this White House balance or incorporate the will
of the people at the same time as the President taking a principled
stand?

MR. SNOW: Well, on the other hand, the American people also have
said that if the veto is sustained, Congress ought to go ahead and pass
the bill. That's the will of the American people. CBS, Axelrod. The
fact is that there are a number of polls. But the problem a lot of
times with the polls, it will take a cut at one little sort of a sliver
of a much broader debate. And I think what the American people -- of
course, the American people want the troops home. The President wants
the troops home. Nobody likes a situation of war. But you also don't
want a situation that's going to make this nation less secure in the
short run or the long run.

Again, you take a look -- one of the things -- here is the National
Intelligence Estimate: If coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly, this
almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and
scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance, have
adverse consequences for national reconciliation. One of the things it
also says in the Baker-Hamilton commission report is: al Qaeda would
depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq
descends into chaos -- which it judges likely -- the long-range
consequences could eventually require the United States to return.
Question: Would you like that situation? The American people would
say, no.

The interesting thing about public opinion polls is that you can
get people to respond to a headline. But the President can't respond to
a headline. He has to respond to a war that has enormous complexity --

Q That he started.

MR. SNOW: -- and has a lot of different pieces to it. And,
therefore, the real key is, as Commander-in-Chief his solemn obligation
is to make this country safe and to fulfill our security interests,
which is what he's going to do. And it's a lot easier, again, to sort
of argue about a particular poll question. But there are real security
interests that you have to deal with.

Les.

Q Thank you, Tony. Two questions. Does the President agree or
disagree with what page one of The Washington Times this morning reports
is D.C. City Councilman Marion Barry's proposal to charge all U.S.
citizens tolls if they come to our nation's capital? Or does he believe
Mr. Barry should either pay his income taxes or go to prison, as
prosecuting attorneys have asked?

MR. SNOW: Les, I'm going to send you Article I of the
Constitution. You can sort of look through some of the executive powers
and we'll get back to you. But that's --

Q Okay, page one of The Washington Post quotes President Reagan
as describing Connecticut's former Senator Lowell Weicker as "a pompous
no-good fathead." Does President Bush believe that President Reagan was
wrong in this statement, or right, or will your refusal to comment leave
everyone wondering?

Q The President said earlier today, he said, "Either we'll
succeed or won't succeed" regarding the Iraq mission. And six months
ago, he was asked, are we winning? He said, absolutely. And then it
turned to, we're not winning, we're not losing. Now we're here at,
we'll either succeed or won't succeed. It doesn't sound like a vote of
confidence for the Iraqi -- what should the soldiers make of that
statement?

MR. SNOW: I think the soldiers should make that they've got
somebody who supports them. And they understand that the mission is not
to leave, but to succeed and then leave.

Q But he says, we'll succeed or we won't succeed. He doesn't
sound very confident in our ability to succeed.

MR. SNOW: What he's really talking about is the nature of
political debate. Will the United States send a message that we are
going to provide the support that will enable the forces to do what they
want? As you know, Suzanne, again, the testimony General Petraeus has
been giving indicates that there has been some marginal progress. He
does not want, again, for people to reach too far in the analysis, but
it's there -- not only in Anbar, which predates the Baghdad security
plan, but within Baghdad proper.

The point is that the goal here is success, and the President --
success is still an Iraq that can sustain, govern, and defend itself.
It's one where you will have levels of violence that will not jeopardize
the ability of the government to function on an ongoing basis.

So, no, this is not a stepping back, this is not the President
embracing gloom, but realizing that it is a complex situation that
ultimately the American people -- and you have to understand what the
military understands, which is it is tough business, but it is vital,
absolutely vital for our long-term security. This is not -- this is a
place where failure really is not and should not be an option.

Q Sustain, govern, and defend, could Iraq do any of those three
now?

MR. SNOW: I don't think it is in a position independently to do
the three at this juncture. That's one of the reasons why.